4.6 Article

Generation of CD4+CD45RA+ effector T cells by stimulation in the presence of cyclic adenosine 5′-monophosphate-elevating agents

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
卷 169, 期 3, 页码 1159-1167

出版社

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.169.3.1159

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

After TCR cross-linking, naive CD4(+)CD45RA(+)T cells switch to the expression of the CD45RO isoform and acquire effector functions. In this study we have shown that cAMP-elevating agents added to anti-CD3- and anti-CD28-stimulated cultures of T lymphocytes prevent acquisition of the CD45RO(+) phenotype and lead to the generation of a new subpopulation of primed CD4(+)CD45RA(+) effector cells (cAMP-primed CD45RA). These cells displayed a low apoptotic index, as the presence of dibutyryl cAMP (dbcAMP)-rescued cells from CD3/CD28 induced apoptosis. Inhibition of CD45 splicing by dbcAMP was not reverted by addition of exogenous IL-2. cANIP-primed CD45RA cells had a phenotype characteristic of memory/effector T lymphocytes, as they showed an up-regulated expression of CD2, CD44, and CD11a molecules, while the levels of CD62L Ag were down-regulated. These cells also expressed the activation markers CD30, CD71, and HLA class It Ags at an even higher level than CD3/CD28-stimulated cells in the absence of dbcAMP. In agreement with this finding, cAMP-primed CD45RA cells were very efficient in triggering allogenic responses in a MLR. In addition, cAMP-primed CD45RA cells produce considerable amounts of the Th2 cytokines, IL-4, IL-10, and IL-13, whereas the production of IFN-gamma and TNF-alpha was nearly undetectable. The elevated production of IL-13 by neonatal and adult cANIP-primed CD45RA cells was specially noticeable. The cAMP-dependent inhibition of CD45 splicing was not caused by the production of immunosuppressor cytokines. These results suggest that within the pool of CD4(+)CD45RA(+) cells there is a subpopulation of effector lymphocytes generated by activation in the presence of cAMP-elevating agents.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据